Full Version: U.S., Britain Differ on Iraq Operations
Today I heard both Colin Powell and then Tony Blair Spell out their draft resolution for Iraq come June 30. But unfortunately they are not reading the same draft resolution. 
U.S., Britain Differ on Iraq Operations
Reuters
Question: Before announcing a draft resolution to the press should the White House and England be reading from the same draft and agree on the resolution?
Since we are giving control over to Iraq on June 30 should they be involved in decisions of what are military activities are within their country after that date?
While I am against handing over our military authority to anyone besides the US it does sort of confuse me because, if we are handing over sovereignity to the new Iraq government on June 30 I do believe since we are in their country they should have some say so in what are military does. Sort of like what Tony Blair said about going into Fallujah after June 30 and the last quote of that's what the transfer of sovereignty means.
U.S., Britain Differ on Iraq Operations
QUOTE
The United States and Britain appeared at odds Tuesday over how much control Iraq's caretaker government will have over American-led military operations after the handover of political authority on June 30.
Secretary of State Colin Powell said U.S.-led troops will do "what is necessary to protect themselves." In London, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Iraqis should have the final say over any major military operations.
snipet
Bush administration officials said Iraq's new government will have a consulting and coordinating role over U.S. troop operations that still needs to be defined. Britain agrees, yet Blair said significant offensives, such as the U.S. assault on the city of Fallujah last month, would not take place without the consent of the new government.
Powell said at a news conference that Iraq's interim government will have full sovereignty, and so it will "have a role to play, obviously" in the activities of U.S. forces who will still be on the ground after June 30. The United States has 138,000 troops in Iraq who will continue to serve under U.S. command after the turnover of political power.
Secretary of State Colin Powell said U.S.-led troops will do "what is necessary to protect themselves." In London, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Iraqis should have the final say over any major military operations.
snipet
Bush administration officials said Iraq's new government will have a consulting and coordinating role over U.S. troop operations that still needs to be defined. Britain agrees, yet Blair said significant offensives, such as the U.S. assault on the city of Fallujah last month, would not take place without the consent of the new government.
Powell said at a news conference that Iraq's interim government will have full sovereignty, and so it will "have a role to play, obviously" in the activities of U.S. forces who will still be on the ground after June 30. The United States has 138,000 troops in Iraq who will continue to serve under U.S. command after the turnover of political power.
Reuters
QUOTE
Britain said on Tuesday a planned interim Iraqi government will have final control over foreign troops, but Washington said its forces will be under U.S. command and do whatever necessary to protect themselves.
The apparent difference between the allies could complicate their efforts to secure U.N. Security Council endorsement for a June 30 handover in Iraq, particularly after France, Russia and China signaled they wanted changes to a draft resolution.
"The final political control (over foreign troops) remains with the Iraqi government. That's what the transfer of sovereignty means," British Prime Minister Tony Blair told reporters in London.
The apparent difference between the allies could complicate their efforts to secure U.N. Security Council endorsement for a June 30 handover in Iraq, particularly after France, Russia and China signaled they wanted changes to a draft resolution.
"The final political control (over foreign troops) remains with the Iraqi government. That's what the transfer of sovereignty means," British Prime Minister Tony Blair told reporters in London.
Question: Before announcing a draft resolution to the press should the White House and England be reading from the same draft and agree on the resolution?
Since we are giving control over to Iraq on June 30 should they be involved in decisions of what are military activities are within their country after that date?
While I am against handing over our military authority to anyone besides the US it does sort of confuse me because, if we are handing over sovereignity to the new Iraq government on June 30 I do believe since we are in their country they should have some say so in what are military does. Sort of like what Tony Blair said about going into Fallujah after June 30 and the last quote of that's what the transfer of sovereignty means.
For clarity, Blair is not proposing that British troops will be under foreign command, just that the Iraqi governing council will have a final veto over operations. They way I understand it, they will not be able to order British troops to go do anything, but they will be given the opportunity to prevent certain operations they see as non-constructive (i.e. their input will be preventative rather than active).
Given that the Iraqi council is going to be largely sympathetic to coalition aims, I don't see any real practical barriers arising here - the difference is largely one of emphasis.
Powell is more or less saying that American commander will have the final say, but will work closely with the governing council to make their command directions. Blair is saying that British troops will comply with Iraqi council command directions.
I think the main difference in the reception of these two subtly different positions is that Blair's eye is on the Iraqi audience, nervous that coalition troops will go off and do whatever the bidding of their domestic governments is, so he is trying to reassure them that this will not happen. This is particularly key given the current high prominence of the prisoner abuse/torture relevations, the recent wedding party attack, and so on.
He also has half an eye on the domestic UK scene, where many of his critics and supporters are waiting to see him exercising some of the influence he claims to have over the Bush administration, rather than behaving as though he is "Bush's poodle".
Powell's eye is firmly on the US domestic audience and that of the Us military itself, where the very idea that anyone other than another American should have the temerity to tell an American what to do and expect them to comply is beyond the pale.
Personally I think that Blair's reading of the situation is a good deal shrewder than Powell's (and by extension the Bush administration's). The success or failure of the interim Iraqi governing council, and subsequent elections, will be due to the way the Iraqi people behave, and not to the opinions of US voters. So he is addressing the right audience.
To answer your questions, I don't think Downing Street and Washington DC* have to publicly agree on every detail every time, in fact I would prefer it if they disagree more publicly more often, over Iraq and other matters. The relationship between ideologically different positions seems unhealthily close too much of the time for my liking.
And yes, the governing council of Iraq should have a say in what takes place in their country once control is handed over on 30 June. America should learn that cooperation sometimes requires compromise, and that if you want to work with other people you cannot expect to get your own way all the time. Being told "no" is not a personal insult.
I realise that this is not the actual position underlying Powell's statements yesterday, but it is certainly the impression he gave by making what amount to domestic electoral reassurances on the world stage.
Given that the Iraqi council is going to be largely sympathetic to coalition aims, I don't see any real practical barriers arising here - the difference is largely one of emphasis.
Powell is more or less saying that American commander will have the final say, but will work closely with the governing council to make their command directions. Blair is saying that British troops will comply with Iraqi council command directions.
I think the main difference in the reception of these two subtly different positions is that Blair's eye is on the Iraqi audience, nervous that coalition troops will go off and do whatever the bidding of their domestic governments is, so he is trying to reassure them that this will not happen. This is particularly key given the current high prominence of the prisoner abuse/torture relevations, the recent wedding party attack, and so on.
He also has half an eye on the domestic UK scene, where many of his critics and supporters are waiting to see him exercising some of the influence he claims to have over the Bush administration, rather than behaving as though he is "Bush's poodle".
Powell's eye is firmly on the US domestic audience and that of the Us military itself, where the very idea that anyone other than another American should have the temerity to tell an American what to do and expect them to comply is beyond the pale.
Personally I think that Blair's reading of the situation is a good deal shrewder than Powell's (and by extension the Bush administration's). The success or failure of the interim Iraqi governing council, and subsequent elections, will be due to the way the Iraqi people behave, and not to the opinions of US voters. So he is addressing the right audience.
To answer your questions, I don't think Downing Street and Washington DC* have to publicly agree on every detail every time, in fact I would prefer it if they disagree more publicly more often, over Iraq and other matters. The relationship between ideologically different positions seems unhealthily close too much of the time for my liking.
And yes, the governing council of Iraq should have a say in what takes place in their country once control is handed over on 30 June. America should learn that cooperation sometimes requires compromise, and that if you want to work with other people you cannot expect to get your own way all the time. Being told "no" is not a personal insult.
I realise that this is not the actual position underlying Powell's statements yesterday, but it is certainly the impression he gave by making what amount to domestic electoral reassurances on the world stage.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.